Hanging out with Joe Trippi

Last night and this morning I was hanging out with Joe Trippi, among other luminaries (we were presenting at a PR/marketing event at KOMO-TV/Radio this morning). I don’t usually talk about politics here, but Joe gave his insights and thought I’d share them.

In the 2008 election he expects that Hillary Clinton will be a lockin for the Democrats. He doesn’t see anyone who can challenge her from the Democratic side. On the right side he’s expecting a far more conservative than even George Bush is. Why? His reasoning is that the powerbase that put George Bush in power is mad that they haven’t gotten things done, for instance, repealing of abortion and other conservative issues. He doesn’t think that a moderate Republican has any chance in getting nominated at all.┬áIf that weren’t bad enough, he theorized that a Democrat would split ranks and run as an independent. He isn’t sure how this would play out, but it probably wouldn’t be good for Hillary, who’ll have a tough time getting elected anyway.

Anyway, that’s the doom and gloom from my conversations with Joe. Admittedly he has his own biases. He says there’s no way that he can see working in American Presidential politics again.

Oh, and he says that Republicans are far more blog savvy than the Democrats are and are spending more resources on the Internet. His blog is at JoeTrippi.com, but he apologizes that he hasn’t been able to blog much lately. He’s been consulting with politicians outside the US and businesses like IBM, so he’s been away from the computer too much.

2008 sure will be interesting to watch to see if his predictions come true.

62 thoughts on “Hanging out with Joe Trippi

  1. Let it be known that Hank Dagny is a liar and a fake. He can’t stand anyone smart enough to kick his butt in a fair debate. In fact, he won’t even let you have a fair debate.

    Hank will only debate you on his website, and when you start to show how foolish Hank’s arguments are, he starts deleting your comments and kicking you off his system.

    Then he claims you left the debate because you couldn’t stand up to him.

    Twice now, over several years, I’ve answered his call to debate him, and twice now he or his cronies have censored my messages by deleting them outright.

    And yet he has the gall to claim I left the debate.

    Hank is a liar who doesn’t have the guts to stand up like a man and debate without censorship. But don’t take my word for it: look for any posts by me, Elroy, since he started deleting my posts in mid July. You won’t find any because he deletes them rather than debate me man to man.

    Try it out for yourself. Make enough good arguments and see if he doesn’t start deleting you too. Who knows how many people he’s deleted and then claimed victory since they don’t post anymore (or can’t post anymore, as the case may be).

    He’s a chicken who likes to crow but can’t stand true debate or discussion.

    Enjoy,

    Elroy

  2. Let it be known that Hank Dagny is a liar and a fake. He can’t stand anyone smart enough to kick his butt in a fair debate. In fact, he won’t even let you have a fair debate.

    Hank will only debate you on his website, and when you start to show how foolish Hank’s arguments are, he starts deleting your comments and kicking you off his system.

    Then he claims you left the debate because you couldn’t stand up to him.

    Twice now, over several years, I’ve answered his call to debate him, and twice now he or his cronies have censored my messages by deleting them outright.

    And yet he has the gall to claim I left the debate.

    Hank is a liar who doesn’t have the guts to stand up like a man and debate without censorship. But don’t take my word for it: look for any posts by me, Elroy, since he started deleting my posts in mid July. You won’t find any because he deletes them rather than debate me man to man.

    Try it out for yourself. Make enough good arguments and see if he doesn’t start deleting you too. Who knows how many people he’s deleted and then claimed victory since they don’t post anymore (or can’t post anymore, as the case may be).

    He’s a chicken who likes to crow but can’t stand true debate or discussion.

    Enjoy,

    Elroy

  3. Well looks like Dean is still person non grata…

    “WA Dem Gov Refuses To Be Photographed With Dem Chair Howard Dean…”

  4. Well looks like Dean is still person non grata…

    “WA Dem Gov Refuses To Be Photographed With Dem Chair Howard Dean…”

  5. Chris J Breisch,

    I think the situation was different in the 90s than it would be if Republicans lost power right now. They only had any ground in the 90s because of the 1994 Republican Revolution, which came on the heels of Perot’s issues and his run btw, and because of the leadership of Newt Gingrich. Also, keep in account that Bush only narrowly defeated Kerry, which shows the country is divided on the parties. The Republicans will have no new momentum–and the many issues I raised about divisions in the party will show. There are many Republican congressmen, and Republican constituents, who are not completely satisfied, but are quieted as they’re drawn into the debate over whether Bush is a great satan, either by self-censorship or by lack of media coverage. Because that is the debate there is also no reason to attack Democrats, just defend themselves. And when they attack they won’t call Democrats thugs, but crazies. There was some virulent rhetoric against ‘liberals’ in the 90s that will come back.

    I think McCain in a real serious election would not do well. People have this idea that he can because he’s popular and has some image of being a maverick. But what people I think don’t realize is that this is just an image, created by the media, and something which he is always eager to pay in to. If you take the lone issue of campaign finance reform, he has never been able to be articulate about it; when he was in debates, when the subject came up all he did was pepper in the phrase ‘special interests’ into every other sentence, never anything eloquent. In fact, he was never able to debate very eloquently about any issue. He lost the debates he was in. McCain’s popularity is the creation of the media, and as soon as he has to debate, he will fall. He will also be faced with a reputation for instability.

    [
    And as a sidenote, I think its a joke when anyone tries to use the McCain-Feingold bill to discredit any campaign finance reform. Serious non-partisan groups which were in favor of campaign finance reform were always against the bill. It really did very little at all, with the image of doing a lot. I don't think people realize how little it did as an effort to reform. Also, no third parties supported it, because the bill actually penalizes third parties, making it harder for them to do well in elections. So people who try to use the bill as an example of the failure of campaign finance reform are really most of the time, talking out of their rear.

    Then people target 527 groups as the result of genuine campaign finance reform--which i don't think they are. But even the criticism of them I believe is farsighted. What if all we had were 527 groups, and no PACs (which the bill did nothing about)? What that would mean would just be is that all of the muck is out in the open, rather behind closed doors. Campaign finance reform isn't different than a war on drugs or a war on terror, there is no way to end corruption, there are just ways to make things more transparent. Corporations are banned, btw, from donating directly to candidates, and this was ruled Constitutional by the Supreme Court (and you can see in the founders writings tacit support). The issue is the ways that exist to funnel in money. The Court has wanted to protect issue advocacy groups while preventing graft and de-facto bribery.
    ]

    Powell will not run, and I don’t think Warner or Richardson will ignite anyone’s attention. (Border security and immigration, btw, are some of the issues which are dividing Republicans under the tent). I think if there ever was a contest between Guliani and Hillary Clinton it would be a battle, but we’re probably never going to get there.

    By the way, there is a lot of speculation that New York mayor Michael Bloomberg will run as an independent, even though he’s now denying any plans.

  6. Chris J Breisch,

    I think the situation was different in the 90s than it would be if Republicans lost power right now. They only had any ground in the 90s because of the 1994 Republican Revolution, which came on the heels of Perot’s issues and his run btw, and because of the leadership of Newt Gingrich. Also, keep in account that Bush only narrowly defeated Kerry, which shows the country is divided on the parties. The Republicans will have no new momentum–and the many issues I raised about divisions in the party will show. There are many Republican congressmen, and Republican constituents, who are not completely satisfied, but are quieted as they’re drawn into the debate over whether Bush is a great satan, either by self-censorship or by lack of media coverage. Because that is the debate there is also no reason to attack Democrats, just defend themselves. And when they attack they won’t call Democrats thugs, but crazies. There was some virulent rhetoric against ‘liberals’ in the 90s that will come back.

    I think McCain in a real serious election would not do well. People have this idea that he can because he’s popular and has some image of being a maverick. But what people I think don’t realize is that this is just an image, created by the media, and something which he is always eager to pay in to. If you take the lone issue of campaign finance reform, he has never been able to be articulate about it; when he was in debates, when the subject came up all he did was pepper in the phrase ‘special interests’ into every other sentence, never anything eloquent. In fact, he was never able to debate very eloquently about any issue. He lost the debates he was in. McCain’s popularity is the creation of the media, and as soon as he has to debate, he will fall. He will also be faced with a reputation for instability.

    [
    And as a sidenote, I think its a joke when anyone tries to use the McCain-Feingold bill to discredit any campaign finance reform. Serious non-partisan groups which were in favor of campaign finance reform were always against the bill. It really did very little at all, with the image of doing a lot. I don't think people realize how little it did as an effort to reform. Also, no third parties supported it, because the bill actually penalizes third parties, making it harder for them to do well in elections. So people who try to use the bill as an example of the failure of campaign finance reform are really most of the time, talking out of their rear.

    Then people target 527 groups as the result of genuine campaign finance reform--which i don't think they are. But even the criticism of them I believe is farsighted. What if all we had were 527 groups, and no PACs (which the bill did nothing about)? What that would mean would just be is that all of the muck is out in the open, rather behind closed doors. Campaign finance reform isn't different than a war on drugs or a war on terror, there is no way to end corruption, there are just ways to make things more transparent. Corporations are banned, btw, from donating directly to candidates, and this was ruled Constitutional by the Supreme Court (and you can see in the founders writings tacit support). The issue is the ways that exist to funnel in money. The Court has wanted to protect issue advocacy groups while preventing graft and de-facto bribery.
    ]

    Powell will not run, and I don’t think Warner or Richardson will ignite anyone’s attention. (Border security and immigration, btw, are some of the issues which are dividing Republicans under the tent). I think if there ever was a contest between Guliani and Hillary Clinton it would be a battle, but we’re probably never going to get there.

    By the way, there is a lot of speculation that New York mayor Michael Bloomberg will run as an independent, even though he’s now denying any plans.

  7. Joe Trippi raised 20 million $ for Howard Dean on the Web and then spent most of it on negative TV ads and leaflets attacking Dick Gephardt in Iowa.

    Dick Gephardt was a good man, Trippi’s strategy backfired and he was fired.

  8. Joe Trippi raised 20 million $ for Howard Dean on the Web and then spent most of it on negative TV ads and leaflets attacking Dick Gephardt in Iowa.

    Dick Gephardt was a good man, Trippi’s strategy backfired and he was fired.

  9. Brian,

    No, I don’t agree. The Republicans were out of the White House for most of the 90′s and I didn’t see (as much of) the complete loss of focus that exemplifies the Democratic leadership of today. Yes, the Republicans lost their way in Monica-gate, and Starr-gate, but they didn’t try to bring down the White House with every time there was a strange smell emanating from the Potomac. I don’t recall any Republican leader ever saying “I hate Democrats.” as Dean has said about Republicans, or “Democrats are thugs” as Kerry has said about Republicans.

    That’s the difference. All parties act a little weird when they’re out of power, which is unfortunate, but I think the Democrats have gone beyond that. Ironically, I think you can blame the blogosphere for some of this. Democrats feel they must repond to the most vocal and most activist portions of their party, because that’s where the noise and money is coming from, but that just further drives a wedge between them and middle-America.

    The Republicans (so far) have managed to avoid such a schism. And the Republicans may not have many options in 2008, as you say, but then that will just make 2008 a replay of 1988, I think. All the Republicans have to do is find someone less offensive to middle America than Hillary, or at least paint their candidate that way (as they did with Bush 41 vs. Dukakis).

    You want some dream tickets for middle America? I’ll give you two. Both of these tickets would have problems with the extremists, but both would be wildly successful with the middle and be tough to beat. As a matter of fact, I think the first one would have no trouble picking up 350+ EV, and against Hillary would likely get over 400 EV.

    #1 (R) McCain/Powell – If you’re a moderate Republican, then this ticket has it all. Strength on National Defense, experience in foreign relations, little “baggage” or at least little of the kind that middle America cares about, popular with the media, etc. Yes, I know about McCain/Feingold, and I know that neither of these are as hawkish as the current residents of the White House. But, that last just strengthens their appeal to the middle. Finally, the addition of Powell to the ticket virtually guarantees a better showing than 8% among blacks, and if that number even gets to 12%, no Democrat ticket has a chance. Problems with the base are that they’re both a bit weak on the a-word, and as I said, perhaps not hawkish enough for some.

    #2 (D) Warner/Richardson (Gov. NM) – Once again, this Democratic ticket plays well with the middle. Warner’s a popular former Governor from a red state, and Richardson is known and liked from his Clinton years. Richardson also is a governor who deals with border security issues and has shown himself to be tough on this issue (in many ways tougher than the Bush administration). They’re both from south of the Mason-Dixon line which has shown itself to be hugely important in selecting a winning Presidential candidate. Neither are idealogues, and have shown themselves willing to stray from the party line in the interests of their constituents. The Republicans would have a very difficult time defeating this ticket. I’m not sure that any ticket other than the one I mentioned earlier could do it.

    Of course, the state of the economy and war on terror and middle east will play a huge role in 2008 as well. If the economy tanks and the war on terror goes south, Republicans will face an uphill battle. On the other hand, if the economy continues to grow, and the war on terror has enough successes to point to, the Democrats will face an uphill battle.

Comments are closed.